Who is my neighbor?
Posted Friday, October 29, 2010
One of the subjects I teach at African Bible College is hermeneutics – the science and art of interpreting the Bible. The other day in class we were going over the parable of the Good Samaritan. You will recall that the context of this parable was someone asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” I asked the class, “If we were to give this parable a present day setting, who would the Good Samaritan be?” One student said, “A gay person.”
This brings up a valid point. The GLBT community are our neighbors. As British evangelical leader John R.W. Stott has said, “However strongly we may disapprove of homosexual practices, we have no liberty to dehumanize those who engage in them” (Involvement, Vol. II, p. 215). Since Jesus could eat with tax collectors without affirming their tax collecting methods, I can imagine that if he were to come to earth today, he just might eat with gays, without affirming homosexual lifestyles.
That said, I think that evangelicals should continue to oppose any change or deletion to your G-6.0106b. I have a colleague here at the college who went through flight attendant training. He told me that out of a class of 33, only 11 were male, and out of those 11, he was the only straight one. He said that he got hit on a lot. It is a matter of indifference to me what the sexual orientation of the person standing in the aisle of an airplane pointing to the emergency exits is. But imagine a scenario in which, while the general American population is only 5 percent gay, 20 or 30 percent or more of mainline Protestant clergy come from the GLBT community. Now imagine further that out of those numbers, many are engaged in open marriages, or bringing home a new partner every week, while many who were in “committed relationships” go to court and get divorces (I can believe that the legal profession is at the vanguard of approving same-sex marriage; potentially more business for them).
The question then becomes: how many couples with young children will bring them into that environment for religious and moral instruction? This explains why the more “inclusive” the PCUSA becomes, the smaller it gets.
Jesus never suggested that Zacchaeus, Matthew or any of the other tax collectors should continue in that line of work while identifying themselves as his disciples. He called for repentance. Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
PCUSA was open to continuing relationship
Posted Friday, October 29, 2010
Re: Connecting with the Global Church, The Layman, October 2010.
As a retired missionary to Brazil (33 years with PCUS/PC(USA) and world Christian I am very happy that the Presbyterian Lay Committee continues to give a high priority to maintaining relationships with international bodies, including the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPB).
It is unfortunately true that the PCUSA no longer has a relationship with the IPB, our daughter church in Brazil, though we do continue partnerships with other smaller Brazilian Presbyterian denominations. Rev. Ludgero, presently the executive secretary of the IPB, is quoted in the piece mentioned as saying “our denomination is the result of the missionary work of your church, yet was [sic] virtually impossible to maintain the ties with our mother church.” That statement could be easily misunderstood. The break in relations with the UPCUSA occurred in 1973 and with the PCUSA in 1983. In both cases the decision to end the relationship was a unilateral one made by the IPB. When the IPB informed the PCUSA soon after reunion in 1983 that it no longer wished to continue a partnership relationship with the newly-organized North American denomination, PCUSA mission leaders were on record as wanting the partnership to continue and continue to be open to restoring the relationship between the denominations.
Details on how the relationship between the mother and daughter churches began and ended can be found in the book “Long Road to Obsolescence” (Xlibris, 2009) of my authorship. Frank L. Arnold Tucker, Ga.
Article is ‘bile of ignorance and superstition’
Posted Friday, October 29, 2010
In your latest column, “The Wages of Sin” in the October issue of The Layman, I find it extremely saddening that you would take the occasion to use the tragic events in the Chicago Presbytery to bolster your argument against the repeal of the fidelity/chastity provision in the PC(USA) Book of Order. In your commentary, you attempt to draw parallels between the victimization of children and those seeking the withdrawal of G-6.0106b, insinuating that such an action would lead to a culture of permissiveness that would encourage others to harm children as well.
Let’s be clear: There is not, nor will there ever be, any standard in the Book of Order, or in society that would ever allow for the sexual and/or physical abuse of children. Our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ (many of whom are parents with children) would undoubtedly agree. In my time serving as a pastor over many years, I have read many things that I disagree with in The Layman, but I am aghast at your poor use of judgment. Child sexual abuse is not about sexual orientation, rather it is about power and pain. In making your claims, you use the victimization of children as an excuse to victimize others who merely disagree with you. If you find yourself incapable of pleading your case for the fidelity/chastity provision without relying upon such methods, then perhaps you should reconsider the very standard that you have raised.
In spite of my frequent theological, scriptural and political disagreements with The Layman, I had considered your publication a valuable resource for church leaders. Your staff appears to be blessed with writers that seem to be well-informed of the many issues and challenges facing our denomination. Why you see fit to poison these gifts with the bile of ignorance and superstition continues to confound me. What a lost opportunity for you and for our denomination! Rev. George W. Chapman III Buena Vista, Va.
‘We simply cannot support what is happening’
Posted Thursday, October 28, 2010
As requested, here is a copy of what we put on the Board of Pensions website under the “Contact Us” option:
“As a long-time elder and member of a PCUSA church, I and many others in this church object greatly to the GAs asking your board to extend benefits to same-sex partners of PCUSA employees. This is contrary to Scriptural decrees.”
We continue to appreciate The Layman’s publication and your keeping us informed of what is happening at the General Assembly level. Our church session (I’ll leave it unnamed lest I’m speaking before this becomes a congregational-accepted move) voted on their budget last night and voted to not only revoke per capita money to the GA and Synod, but now, even to our Presbytery. We simply cannot support what is happening that is so contrary to Scripture and our presbytery’s vote last time around on the fidelity and chastity issue ended in a tie. Since then, we have lost several conservative pastors from the presbytery, which makes us uncertain about future votes in our presbytery. Clarence and Judy Lanka Stapleton, Neb.
Arguments are unsustainable
Posted Thursday, October 28, 2010
In his arguments in the recent Webinar sponsored by the Presbyterian Outlook, Dr. Mark Achtemeier proffered a number of arguments that are unsustainable.
“Amendment A will bring peace to the presbyteries by halting the endless succession of battles over proposed amendments to the Constitution.” This statement is ludicrous. Does he think that Evangelicals will simply roll over and play nice with the liberals just because the liberals get their amendment into the Book of Order? This will not end the debate, for one of two things will happen: Either the Evangelicals will seek to pass overtures to restore §G-6.0106b to the Book of Order, which would lead to more partisan wrangling in the presbyteries, or Evangelicals will take the issue to the civil courts in seeking in greater numbers to separate themselves with their property from the Presbyterian Church (USA).
He argued that the term “chastity” in §G-6.0106b is divisively ambiguous and that the phrase “in obedience to Scripture” is inconsistent with the PCUSA’s Confessions. “Chastity,” as defined by Dictionary.com, means “abstention from sexual intercourse.” Clearly this is the intent of the word in the context of §G-6.0106b — there is no ambiguity. The divisiveness comes from those in the PCUSA who refuse to obey Scripture. And against Dr. Achtemeier’s claim that the phrase “in obedience to Scripture” is inconsistent with the PCUSA’s Confessions, the Second Helvetic Confession states, “We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men.” (Book of Confessions §5.001) The Westminster Confession of Faith says as much (Book of Confessions §6.001-§6.010) and also says of the moral law contained in the Scriptures, “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it.” (Book of Confessions §6.105, emphasis added)
Finally, he said, “If the experts who advocate the lenient position are in error and people listen to their advice, the worst we can accuse those people of are sins of ignorance, which are easily covered by grace. In a situation where there is serious doubt about the faithfulness of excluding gays and lesbians from the ministry, the safest path spiritually is to err on the side of grace.” Dr. Achtemeier has seriously underestimated the very grave danger that awaits those who do not warn sinners to repent. “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. … Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteousness deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand.” (Ezekiel 3:18-20) And as the Lord Jesus said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned into the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) To “err on the side of grace” by allowing the ordination of practicing homosexuals is by no means “the safest path spiritually,” for it is fraught with peril, not only for the practicing homosexual who is not warned to turn from his or her wicked way, but also for the church member who does not warn him or her to turn from sin. Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
‘Chastity’ is not confusing
Posted Thursday, October 28, 2010
Mark Achtemeier repeats the old argument that “chastity” is misinterpreted. It’s like the Philadelphia Presbytery’s committee recommendation the last go around to remove the language because it was “too confusing.” Seems when the Bible gets in the way the liberals have to resort to changing the English language also. After this attempt fails perhaps they can try arguing that the Bible itself is too confusing since the “misinterpreted” scam hasn’t sold. Fred Edwards
Ready to knock the dust from my sandals
Posted Thursday, October 28, 2010
Yesterday, I went to the webinar expecting to see lots of Presbyterians anxious to learn more about this explosive upcoming vote. Funny, the only people attending our webinar were my church’s two pastors, a representative from our Presbytery and myself, not much of a turnout. Disappointing is one thought that came to me. Arriving a couple minutes late, I didn’t know who was speaking when I came into the room. It didn’t take long before I thought I was in the wrong place, the person speaking was saying his position was going to heal the church and stop the division. At first I thought he must be from another planet, not knowing we were talking about the homosexual issue. From my perspective, he didn’t have a clue to the importance or the reality of the issue. I soon learned who was speaking and was greatly disappointed to learn he was actually on the PUP committee. I’m sorry but I can’t fathom how his views would have been construed as constructive on a peace, unity and purity commission. I know when tact was handed out, I was outside playing in the creek so there is no need to point it out to me, I’m aware of it too.
I care deeply about the Presbyterian Church where I was baptized 66 years ago and am deeply disturbed about the demise coming from within the leadership. Personally, I would’ve preferred to have a layman discussing this instead of a professor. From my experience, there are professors not acquainted with reality and he sure didn’t do anything to change my mind. I liked most of Mike Loudon’s point of view until he mentioned a dirty word, compromise. I am far from being a Biblical scholar but I don’t recall God asking us to compromise anything in the Bible. Rather, my understanding of compromise is that you are serving two masters if you compromise. Me, I serve one Master, our God, our Creator. I see compromise as incomplete faithfulness to God, not what we should be aspiring to achieve.
Again, in my opinion, the one idea that had any value to me was offered in the last couple minutes when Mike Loudon was talking about the two choices, for and against and then mentioned one obscure choice that is not being discussed very much, a split. It hit me hard (the light bulb went off), that is the answer. Since the homosexual activists want to take over the PCUSA and change God’s Word, I say GREAT IDEA. Let them have PCUSA and let the rest of us have our evangelical church so we can get about God’s work on Earth with all this wasteful, repetitive arguments. God does say if we are unsuccessful in teaching His Word, dust off our sandals and move on, I say, what are we waiting for? Let’s go. I’m willing to serve and wash feet, are you?
God wants the church to succeed. He doesn’t say Presbyterian Church, Baptist Church, Lutherans or Episcopalians. We are all the church and to me that doesn’t necessarily mean a particular denomination. Let the gays have their playground, let’s leave and go about Gods work on earth and be true to His Word.
In His service, Richard Conway, elder First Morganton
Global South is indeed rising
Posted Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thank you for publishing the article, Global South rising. I just returned recently from a trip to Brazil, where I had served as a Presbyterian Church (USA) mission worker and was so very much impressed at the way the churches continue to grow in life, numbers and witness.
My wife is a third generation Presbyterian from Brazil and I was privileged to preach in her family’s church in the Sâo Paulo area and was greeted by some 700 worshipers at their evening service! I spoke in two other Presbyterian churches in different parts of the state of Sâo Paulo with the same amount of enthusiasm for the Christian faith.
I do not glorify the Brazilian Protestant churches but in spite of their short comings (as all churches have) they are firm on their belief on the authority of Scripture and are going about the ministry of sharing Jesus Christ with those they come into contact with. It was truly a joy and privilege to be in contact with them again!
Grace and Peace, Rev. Dr. Eriberto (Eddie) Soto, Associate for Latin American Ministries Charleston-Atlantic Presbytery
Brown should get specific on the issues
Posted Wednesday, October 27, 2010
I have read The Layman October article page 6 over and over trying to understand the specifics of what Stephen G. Brown is writing about.
Where are the freedoms that have been lost? We can travel (except by air) the whole country without someone asking us for papers. We are not in a police state. What is his definition of socialism that is so ugly? Is he against roads, the public utility plants, sewage treatment plants? Are our public schools ugly? All these can be ascribed to socialism. Who are those that say it is improper for church leaders to have any voice in what is happening in government? Please name names. We all get a vote? Does he want more than one vote? Should his church have more of a voice than another church?
Article One of the constitution protects his free speech. Article One of our constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Is he against that? It is clear Mr. Brown is angry about something, but it would be helpful if he could get specific on the issues. I would love to discuss the issues.
Robert Flesvig, CLU Glen Ellyn, Ill.
It’s a great relief to be engaged in a straight forward study of the Word
Posted Monday, October 25, 2010
I have nothing but praise for Voices of Orthodox Women (VOW). In fact, our women’s group downloaded and is studying VOW’s study of Mark, (“Straight to the point: Do you see him now?”). It is a great relief to be engaged in a straight forward study of the Word – minus the biased/mind bending material so current these days. Armour Upchurch-Shin Burnet, Texas
‘Sinner, you’re welcome to come home, but on God’s terms, not your own’
Posted Monday, October 25, 2010
Re: Mike Fazzini’s letter to the editor, posted October 22, 2010
There desperately needs to be some distinction between what we’re going to call bullying and what are sticks-and-stones insults or faux pas. At what point does an insult cross the line to become bullying?
Church people have also insulted the short, the overweight, the bald and the weirdly-attired. Of course there is no virtue in these insults, and many of them, as you say, may be well-intentioned. Should our churches have groups for The Insulted Bald or vertically-challenged? Why not? Not all insults are equal, and not all who receive insults merit special attention.
Imagine one in your congregation has a prominent wart on the tip of his nose that for medical reasons is presently unremovable. Of course everyone in the church loves him as he is, and he probably endures insensitive comments from time to time, perhaps even from people who genuinely care about him. At work, he may put up with regular ridicule passed off as “kidding with love.” But ask him, and he will tell you that it is hurtful. The question is this: Just how sensitive can we be expected to be? If the man were to say “until all the people in this congregation put fake warts on their noses, they will never understand how I feel,” don’t we recognize this as manipulative? Demanding compassion on one’s own terms, while appearing fair on the surface, depends upon a distortion of reality – one that places the impetus for change on everyone but oneself.
Did God make him this way? You could say yes. Is it better to have a wart on the tip of your nose than not? No, although it’s not impossible to imagine some bizarre exceptions. Does the church need to mount a campaign to celebrate the nasally warted? For God’s sake, please say no. Does the church need to continue exercising a reasonable amount of sensitivity while the medical field continues to tackle the presently-untackleable problem? Yes.
What is reasonable sensitivity? If you’re saying that until LGBT people have their way with the church it remains patently insensitive, then so be it – isn’t it better to be called insensitive than to submit to manipulation?
The problem is that the called-for sensitivity is never quite sensitive enough. No matter what expressions of care and concern are shown, nothing but full inclusion will satisfy. It is an inflexible agenda on your part; you will have your way or cry foul until you do. This seems to belittle 2,000 years-worth of a worldwide Christian consensus on sexual ethics. Apparently, all those giants upon whose shoulders we stand were just wrong, and those who study them and believe them are something like unenlightened, insensitive fools (hateful and phobic are also popular words). Maybe we need to start a group for Insulted Christians of Orthodox Tendencies?
Frankly, this life is just plain hard. Life is not fair. We all experience insults and some mistreatment. We fight for justice and sometimes lose. We expect sympathy and find none. To this, “Get over it” is sometimes the kindest and best advice a trusted friend can offer, especially to one drowning in self-pity. But that comes from the kind of tough love now considered suspect. Would you and yours consider tough love just another form of bullying?
We stand divided because the practice of compassion was not trusted to grow its own wings; the gentler work of the Spirit within the church wasn’t fast enough and therefore replaced by the raging impatience of activism.
Woundedness will not be allowed to swallow-up wholeness. Misery will not be allowed to eclipse joy as darkness can’t chase light from the room. An invitation to wholeness can only be offered, not force-fed. If joy will not be received, then the remaining misery has no credibility and merits no further sympathy. Such misery becomes self-oppression, self-absorption and self-imposed exile.
The Church speaks now as it always has: Sinner, you’re welcome to come home, but on God’s terms, not your own. That is true for gays, straights, the tall, the short, the bald and you and me. What you cannot expect is the entire tune to change from “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner,” to “I don’t need to be forgiven.” Noel Anderson Bakersfield, Calif.
Worship – 5,000 strong – happened at Lausanne Congress
Posted Monday, October 25, 2010
What happened at the Lausanne Congress in Cape Town, South Africa?
The most important thing that happened occurred many times during the week when the 5,000 people present gathered to praise and worship the Lord. But, of course, the closing worship and communion service last night was extra-special. Two and a half hours went by as an instant and the service concluded with amazing singing … four of the final five songs that we sang were written or co-written by World Reformed Fellowship members Keith and Kristyn Getty – “Kyrie Eleison,” “Behold the Lamb,” “The Power of the Cross” and “In Christ Alone.”
Think now – 5,000 voices from 198 countries singing together the praises of the Lord – “No power of hell, no scheme of man, Can ever pluck me from His hand; Till He returns or calls me home, Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand.”
Worship happened! That’s the most important answer to the question above.
But many, many other things happened as well … so many, that you could never finish reading this e-mail if I tried to describe them all. But I do want to offer two tidbits to you.
First of all, WRF member and Anglican Bishop Dr. Glenn Davies has been blogging about the Congress and, with his permission, I have posted on our Web site his blogs from the first five days of the Congress. I encourage you to read those blogs.
And secondly, “The Cape Town Commitment, Part I” was presented. This is the doctrinal foundation for all that the Lausanne Movement is and does. I have also posted that document here on the WRF Web site and I urge you to look through that as well. You may want to read this document in the context of the proposed WRF Statement of Faith. And do remember that, if your reading of the Cape Town Commitment gives you ideas about things you would like to see in the WRF Statement of Faith, you have until the end of this month (October of 2010) to get your suggestions to Andrew McGowan.
These are just a few of the things that happened at the Lausanne Congress in Cape Town.
Sam Logan
The usual suspects
Posted Monday, October 25, 2010
Re: Presbyterian Board of Pensions names special committee on same-sex benefits
This might also be phrased or described as “Round up the usual suspects…” Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla
Let’s say we as Christians love humanity just as Jesus loves humanity
Posted Monday, October 25, 2010
I’ve noticed in recent articles and letters some great discussions about bullying pertaining to GLBT folks. I can understand the perspective of certain conservatives who note that you must love the sinner but hate the sin. And I think they are correct in noting that liberals basically say the same thing in saying they love the sinner (the conservative from their point of view) and hate the sin (homophobia). And you really do have bullying I think in either case when one takes a sensible and logical view of the situation. And having the words love and hate in the same sentence is just downright conflicting and basically nonsense.
I as a gay man who is in a sense the source of the fuss wishes to offer a better path for all in the PCUSA to follow. This is not to say that I am perfect in taking that path as well, but I think it is nevertheless the way to go. It’s a real challenge for all of us.
Why not just simply say we as Christians love humanity just as Jesus loves humanity? Earl Apel Cincinnati, Ohio
The purpose of discipline is bringing members to repentance and restoration
Posted Friday, October 22, 2010
Dear Rev. Edwards,
As a member of the board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee who helps oversee The Layman and The Layman Online, I am responding to your letter of Oct. 20.
I share in your dismay over the terrible events you cited. I also share with you the promise to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with Scripture as our authority, the confessions as our guide, and the power of the Holy Spirit to empower us to do so obediently.
But before Christ became my Lord, He became my Savior, saving me from the guilt and punishment of sin and sins, as defined by God.
It is because God has spoken so clearly by the authority of the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments to establish marriage and sexual relations only for an adult male and female in a faithful relationship and to proscribe any and all other sexual intimacies that there have been these three decades of “words and actions” in the PCUSA.
The Layman has reported on it all as part of our responsibility to God and the Church. We Christians are to speak the truth in love. We understand that God’s Word is truth and that love is to be both our motive and our manner. We understand that in order to grow up into Christ, we are to hold each other accountable, as God holds us accountable. (Ephesians 4:15-16, 2 Timothy 4:1-2)
We cannot do that by keeping silent when members of Christ’s body try to replace truth with error or seek to bless actions that God calls sinful.
So, I disagree that the continued refusal of the PCUSA to ordain officers unrepentant of sin, sexual or otherwise, is bullying. Rather, it is speaking the truth and loving with the kind of disciplining love that Jesus Christ commanded us to have for each other.
You say that it is impossible to love the sinner but hate the sin. Yet that is what God does and what we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to do. Every parent has been faced with such a situation. Those who best demonstrate God’s love do not indulge or approve the sin of the child, but rather act to correct and restrain wrongdoing, for the benefit of the child. (Hebrews 12:5-11, 1 Corinthians 5: 1-4) That, too, is the purpose of discipline within the PCUSA, bringing members to repentance and restoration.
You say Christians are not to judge, yet your statement that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons are bullied in the (PCUSA) is a judgment you have made, with the further unspoken (but correct) judgment that bullying is wrong. I think that you are not consistent in following your own logic because your premise is faulty – Christians must judge each other in so far as we must hold those in the Christian community to account for ungodly behavior.
You do that. We do that.
And God will judge the faithfulness of our doing.
Yours in Jesus Immanuel, Peggy Hedden Columbus, Ohio